How can that be? Your princessa is a teacher!
She was crying the other day because she's such a terrible teacher.
Something about her kids had only advanced one year in the last, uh, one year. (Didn't make much sense to me, either.)
Anyway, it apparently resulted in her getting only ten out of twenty on the Common Core part of her evaluation (don't quote me on the numbers) and, therefore, she was a terrible teacher.
Apparently, the 59 out of 60 (those you can quote me on) that she got from her principal's in-class evaluation didn't mean anything.
Down with Common Core and anything else that makes La Principessa cry!
School sucks!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
"Quark Blast wrote:
Throwing everyone into the higher education pool, on average, has no net effect. We would be much better off if, for example, Americorp focused on K-12 in-classroom reading/math education instead of building hiking trails (or whatever it is they do). You really want me teachimg your kids?
You are not going to solve the problems with american education with americorps gravel and wheel barrel budget. In fact many of their other programs like working with habitat for humanity help to solve some of the reasons why american education is so terroble, like the craptastic urban blights we have in this country.
Seriously,trillions of dollars poured into needless wars and you think you can fund the difference out of volunteers making 300 bucks a month?
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote: She was crying the other day because she's such a terrible teacher.
Something about her kids had only advanced one year in the last, uh, one year. (Didn't make much sense to me, either.)
Anyway, it apparently resulted in her getting only ten out of twenty on the Common Core part of her evaluation (don't quote me on the numbers) and, therefore, she was a terrible teacher.
Apparently, the 59 out of 60 (those you can quote me on) that she got from her principal's in-class evaluation didn't mean anything.
Down with Common Core and anything else that makes La Principessa cry!
School sucks!
Sso... average kids are average?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: Irontruth wrote: Quark,
Free Trade and automation are hurting the middle and working class.
1 How does making education expensive improve their chances of advancing their economic standing?
2 Why is providing easy access to education a detriment to the working class?
I take it my earlier posts were, collectively, TL/DR.
Your question 1, answer - It doesn't.
Your question 2, answer - It's not. Simply a waste of time.
My auntie's fav movie aside [Forest Gump], you can't get something out of an education that isn't there to build on in the first place. Come to think of it, IIRC, even in the movie the main character's success was actually a long series of astronomically improbable dumb-luck events.
Throwing everyone into the higher education pool, on average, has no net effect. We would be much better off if, for example, Americorp focused on K-12 in-classroom reading/math education instead of building hiking trails (or whatever it is they do). So far, the best EVIDENCE you've shown to substantiate your point about the futility of education is a quote about an RPG and a quote from a movie.
Here's the other problem with everything you've suggested: None of it is mutually exclusive.
It is possible to improve access to grade school AND the university system. We know this is possible, because 200 years ago in this country, it was hard to get either. Now it is much more common place. We also teach our kids more (and our college graduates) than we did 100 years ago, or 50 years ago even.
You use words that make it sound like you have sympathy for the working class, but if that's true, why do you oppose easier access for them to a better education should they:
1) qualify for it (you know, like test scores and grades)
2) desire it
No one is proposing that we send all people to college. Not everyone will succeed, colleges have admissions processes to help improve the success rate of their students. No one is proposing doing away with these standards, yet you treat it as some sort of given that MUST happen. It isn't happening and it isn't part of the proposal or even the concept behind the proposal.
Honestly, the more I re-read your posts, the more it sounds like you just think poor people are dumb. I doubt that is what you want to sound like, so you might want to come up with an actual good reason why you think this is a bad idea.
Again, higher education includes.... any education after high school. Which includes but is not limited to:
-university
-community college
-trade school
-on the job training
Tell me how we will be worse off as a country by providing easier access to these things.
Heh heh. Early morning, pre-class phone sex.
School sucks, but teachers are hawt!!!
Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote: Heh heh. Early morning, pre-class phone sex.
School sucks, but teachers are hawt!!!
phone based hobgobblin! Man, I love modern technology.
Also, you need to come to NY for birthday drinks.
Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Irontruth wrote: Quark,
Free Trade and automation are hurting the middle and working class.
1 How does making education expensive improve their chances of advancing their economic standing?
2 Why is providing easy access to education a detriment to the working class?
I take it my earlier posts were, collectively, TL/DR.
Your question 1, answer - It doesn't.
Your question 2, answer - It's not. Simply a waste of time.
My auntie's fav movie aside [Forest Gump], you can't get something out of an education that isn't there to build on in the first place. Come to think of it, IIRC, even in the movie the main character's success was actually a long series of astronomically improbable dumb-luck events.
Throwing everyone into the higher education pool, on average, has no net effect. We would be much better off if, for example, Americorp focused on K-12 in-classroom reading/math education instead of building hiking trails (or whatever it is they do). So far, the best EVIDENCE you've shown to substantiate your point about the futility of education is a quote about an RPG and a quote from a movie.
Here's the other problem with everything you've suggested: None of it is mutually exclusive.
It is possible to improve access to grade school AND the university system. We know this is possible, because 200 years ago in this country, it was hard to get either. Now it is much more common place. We also teach our kids more (and our college graduates) than we did 100 years ago, or 50 years ago even.
You use words that make it sound like you have sympathy for the working class, but if that's true, why do you oppose easier access for them to a better education should they:
1) qualify for it (you know, like test scores and grades)
2) desire it
No one is proposing that we send all people to college. Not everyone will succeed, colleges have admissions processes to help improve... truth.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
(My b-day was back on 12/28, so drinks at Bon Choi (?) counted even though you didn't know.)
After phone-based hobgoblinry, I sent her a Shakespearean sonnet. I just grabbed it because the first couple of lines sounded hawt, but then she made me analyze it and it wasn't so hawt after all.
"This is one of the most desolate sonnets in the entire series."
Stupid Shakespeare.
thejeff wrote: I also notice you don't mention why those blue collar jobs created that middle class: unions. Before unions, the equivalent kinds of blue collar were miserable working poor kinds of jobs. Unions put themselves out of business by demanding higher wages for low-skilled jobs. The high skilled jobs (the vast majority of them anyway) are all done by automation (if the jobs are still local) or by off shore workers.
You see, as the relatively high skilled jobs were evaporated by improved tech (or were moved over seas) the wages should've started falling proportionately but they didn't. That put tremendous pressure on publicly held companies to accelerate automation and/or move operations over seas.
Every job has gotten more efficient via automation/robotics. The only jobs that have increased in complexity (and then only moderately) are facilities repair and even they are fewer in number.
thejeff wrote: If education won't fix it, and I agree it won't, though I think it can help balance opportunities, is there a way to fix it or is there no alternative but a tiny elite and the vast unwashed masses? Free or nearly free energy. Talking nuclear fusion here (or solar cells that are 85%+ efficient and last 50 years with minimal maintenance).
Even then that's not a guarantee, just what you're asking for becomes possible at that point.
The other possibility is to "burn the whole place down", like Somalia or Syria or Libya or Iraq or Afghanistan or soon to be Ukraine or Pakistan, and so forth.
thejeff wrote: Then what can? Why are parents in poverty so much more likely to fail their children than wealthier parents? Is it genetic? Or a "culture of poverty"?
Is there a way to break that chain?
Or is it all just individual failures of parents unrelated to poverty and mere coincidence that it happens to be poor people far more often and there's nothing than can be done?
It couldn't, for example, have anything to do with even middle class kids have much more opportunity to recover from screw-ups, being given second chances that poor kids just don't get.
The only way to break the cycle regularly is to personally demonstrate, over a person's entire childhood, what opportunities are there and how they can be had - through liberty, responsibility and loads of hard work (and occasionally a dash of "luck"). And if the parents cannot manage to do that, and someone close to the child cannot pick up the slack, then that child is far less apt to succeed.
Sucks but that's the way it is.
BigNorseWolf wrote: You really want me teachimg your kids? Not if you teach them to spell like that. ;>
BigNorseWolf wrote: ...stuff... Seriously,trillions of dollars poured into needless wars and you think you can fund the difference out of volunteers making 300 bucks a month? I was just say'n that whatever it is the Americorp does, the money would be better spent on one-on-one attention to get kids to actually be able to read/write and use core math skills.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Sso... average kids are average? Exactly my point. Average kids, if they were to learn core stuff at the rate that is reasonable to expect, would be done with education by the close of 8th grade.
Throwing money-as-education at them, and eventually an "earned" diploma, won't really help society any.
Irontruth wrote: You use words that make it sound like you have sympathy for the working class, but if that's true, why do you oppose easier access for them to a better education should they:
1) qualify for it (you know, like test scores and grades)
2) desire it
No one is proposing that we send all people to college.
See my immediately previous comment to BigNorseWolf.
Irontruth wrote: Again, higher education includes.... any education after high school. Which includes but is not limited to:
-university
-community college
-trade school
-on the job training
Tell me how we will be worse off as a country by providing easier access to these things.
You will note that my post yesterday was: Quote: Free access to higher ed will have no net effect.... stuff.... Today, with most of the good "blue collar" jobs overseas or gone entirely (to automation), there are very few options left for that class of American worker. "Blue collar" was the American middle class and something most anyone could aspire to or remain comfortably in. All that is gone and free higher education won't bring it back. And I still hold to that.
Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: I also notice you don't mention why those blue collar jobs created that middle class: unions. Before unions, the equivalent kinds of blue collar were miserable working poor kinds of jobs. Unions put themselves out of business by demanding higher wages for low-skilled jobs. The high skilled jobs (the vast majority of them anyway) are all done by automation (if the jobs are still local) or by off shore workers.
You see, as the relatively high skilled jobs were evaporated by improved tech (or were moved over seas) the wages should've started falling proportionately but they didn't. That put tremendous pressure on publicly held companies to accelerate automation and/or move operations over seas.
Every job has gotten more efficient via automation/robotics. The only jobs that have increased in complexity (and then only moderately) are facilities repair and even they are fewer in number. Unions created that blue collar middle class by demanding high wages for low skilled jobs.
Are you saying that conditions have changed so much that we can't have a middle class anymore and we just have to accept poverty for the vast majority?
I'll point out again that the owners made exactly the same argument when the unions were gaining in power and instead of the threatened economic collapse we had the most prosperous period in our history.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: I also notice you don't mention why those blue collar jobs created that middle class: unions. Before unions, the equivalent kinds of blue collar were miserable working poor kinds of jobs. Unions put themselves out of business by demanding higher wages for low-skilled jobs. The high skilled jobs (the vast majority of them anyway) are all done by automation (if the jobs are still local) or by off shore workers.
You see, as the relatively high skilled jobs were evaporated by improved tech (or were moved over seas) the wages should've started falling proportionately but they didn't. That put tremendous pressure on publicly held companies to accelerate automation and/or move operations over seas.
Every job has gotten more efficient via automation/robotics. The only jobs that have increased in complexity (and then only moderately) are facilities repair and even they are fewer in number. Unions created that blue collar middle class by demanding high wages for low skilled jobs.
Are you saying that conditions have changed so much that we can't have a middle class anymore and we just have to accept poverty for the vast majority?
I'll point out again that the owners made exactly the same argument when the unions were gaining in power and instead of the threatened economic collapse we had the most prosperous period in our history. Unions came into their own during a time when mass production still required a tremendous amount of manual labor to get quality product out the door of the factory on time.
In 1955 a large auto-plant might employ 6,000 to 8,000 full time employees directly and indirectly (build/maintain/supply/delivery).
Today the number needed, to produce the same number of units in the same amount of time, is around 300 to 400. And the units produced today are more reliable (need fewer repairs and last longer).
In 1955 oil was cheap.
Today much less so and (current dip not excepted) won't be going back to 1955 affordability ever again.
All that is gone and free higher education won't bring it back.
Sounds like another good time to plug God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater
Quark Blast wrote: Exactly my point. Average kids, if they were to learn core stuff at the rate that is reasonable to expect, would be done with education by the close of 8th grade.
Throwing money-as-education at them, and eventually an "earned" diploma, won't really help society any.
So far, the best evidence you have presented is Forest Gump.
That's pretty weak sauce, do you have anything from the REAL WORLD to back up your claim?
thejeff wrote: LazarX wrote: thejeff wrote: Irontruth wrote: Let's break down your statements here.
Quark Blast wrote:
The point I was making is that until... what? ... sometime in the 1970's? A person could pay his way through college with summer work and part time work while at college.
When people could afford to pay for their own education, they could receive it and provide for themselves.
Though this isn't directly related to your point, a good part of that difference in cost, at least for public colleges, was direct state support for the schools. That's been largely replaced with government subsidized tuitions, through grants and government backed loans. The important statistic that you've not allowed for is that students are now being made to account for a greater percentage of a college or universities's operating expenses. Especially with schools like Rutgers who has taken no hit in student enrollment from raising tuition. (the middle class families who can no longer afford to send their kids to NJ's state university are being replaced by upper class families who's kids can't meet the standards for Princeton.) I think that's what I said, though from a different angle.
And often they still can afford it, by taking out crippling loans or getting grants and scholarships.
Of course, this also ties in to the general decline of the middle class. When the loans become crippling, I think that takes it out of the "affordable" category.
But then again, as Quark will tell you, if they can't afford higher education, it's a waste on them anyway.
Quark Blast wrote:
Today the number needed, to produce the same number of units in the same amount of time, is around 300 to 400. And the units produced today are more reliable (need fewer repairs and last longer).
I
My friend recently retired a Toyota Corrolla which (to the amazement of all conerned) lasted about 16 years.
No one expects a modern car to last half that long.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: Sounds like another good time to plug God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater I remember that book. But then, I've read a lot of Vonnegut.
LazarX wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
Today the number needed, to produce the same number of units in the same amount of time, is around 300 to 400. And the units produced today are more reliable (need fewer repairs and last longer).
I
My friend recently retired a Toyota Corrolla which (to the amazement of all conerned) lasted about 16 years.
No one expects a modern car to last half that long. It depends entirely on the car, how well it's driven, how long it's driven, and how well it's maintained.
Someone who buys a Honda accord today and drives 10 miles to work, 10 miles home and 10 more miles on average running errands (using reasonable acceleration practices) will put 150k miles on that car in 15 years. Using synthetic oil and changing it every 5k miles, keeping fluids in check, and tires properly inflated, that person could reasonably expect to have very few major repair costs and drive that vehicle well into the 2030's.
On the other hand, that same car could get ragged out, driven hard for 6 years and crap out just in time to pay the note off.
LazarX wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
Today the number needed, to produce the same number of units in the same amount of time, is around 300 to 400. And the units produced today are more reliable (need fewer repairs and last longer).
I
My friend recently retired a Toyota Corrolla which (to the amazement of all conerned) lasted about 16 years.
No one expects a modern car to last half that long. Really? Obviously more modern cars haven't lasted that long, since they're not that old yet, but I don't see why they won't.
It's also possible your friend's Corrolla was an outlier. As you said "to the amazement of all concerned". My car's more than 10 years old and I expect it to last a while longer. Though I might not drive this one into the ground, since I can now afford not to.
Especially as they're probably replacing the oil twice as often as they should. My Toyota uses synthetic oil and goes 10k between changes per the manual. The 5k is inspecting the fluids to make sure things are working as intended.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote:
Unions came into their own during a time when mass production still required a tremendous amount of manual labor to get quality product out the door of the factory on time.
In 1955 a large auto-plant might employ 6,000 to 8,000 full time employees directly and indirectly (build/maintain/supply/delivery).
Today the number needed, to produce the same number of units in the same amount of time, is around 300 to 400. And the units produced today are more reliable (need fewer repairs and last longer).
In 1955 oil was cheap.
Today much less so and (current dip not excepted) won't be...
And so, despite being able to produce more and more quickly and easily, we must accept that more and more of us will live in poverty and struggle to try to be among the few prized by the bosses.
And though it doesn't look that way now, the same thing was true back in days of union growth. Vast improvements in technology let work be done by fewer people than ever before. Those very factories and mass production you speak of replaced many times the number of workers and craftsmen that used to be needed. Not so much the auto-plants since those were fairly new, but think of the textile industry. Or of agriculture for that matter.
None of these problems are new.
LazarX wrote: Quark Blast wrote:
Today the number needed, to produce the same number of units in the same amount of time, is around 300 to 400. And the units produced today are more reliable (need fewer repairs and last longer).
I
My friend recently retired a Toyota Corrolla which (to the amazement of all conerned) lasted about 16 years.
No one expects a modern car to last half that long. Here are all of the cars I have owned:
1985 Ford F-150. Sold in 2003, but started having trouble in 2000. It ran well after I sold it, but let's say, for the sake of argument that it lasted 15 years.
1988 Honda Accord. Given to my brother in 2000. The engine died to the point that repair costs would exceed the value of the car in 2003. Lasted 15 years.
1988 VW Jetta. Sold in 2003. Lasted at least 15 years.
1996 Honda Accord. Sold in 2011, when I moved (the cost to move the car exceeded the value of the car). Lasted at least 15 years.
2006 Honda Element. This is the car that my wife and I use for most of our road trips, including lots of USFS logging roads and the signature washboard texture. Eight years and still running strong. We are planning to retire this car in 2020 or 2021.
2014 Subaru Outback. We expect this car to last until 2029 or 2030.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: thejeff wrote: I also notice you don't mention why those blue collar jobs created that middle class: unions. Before unions, the equivalent kinds of blue collar were miserable working poor kinds of jobs. Unions put themselves out of business by demanding higher wages for low-skilled jobs. The high skilled jobs (the vast majority of them anyway) are all done by automation (if the jobs are still local) or by off shore workers.
You see, as the relatively high skilled jobs were evaporated by improved tech (or were moved over seas) the wages should've started falling proportionately but they didn't. That put tremendous pressure on publicly held companies to accelerate automation and/or move operations over seas.
Every job has gotten more efficient via automation/robotics. The only jobs that have increased in complexity (and then only moderately) are facilities repair and even they are fewer in number. Unions created that blue collar middle class by demanding high wages for low skilled jobs.
Are you saying that conditions have changed so much that we can't have a middle class anymore and we just have to accept poverty for the vast majority?
I'll point out again that the owners made exactly the same argument when the unions were gaining in power and instead of the threatened economic collapse we had the most prosperous period in our history.
What some will no doubt say that the middle class was an historical aberration in America that is in the process of being corrected out of existence. Any attempt at bettering the status of the middle class is deemed at siphoning the strength of the elite.
Quark seems to be reading Ayn Rand side of the Libertarian Gospel.
Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Exactly my point. Average kids, if they were to learn core stuff at the rate that is reasonable to expect, would be done with education by the close of 8th grade.
Throwing money-as-education at them, and eventually an "earned" diploma, won't really help society any.
So far, the best evidence you have presented is Forest Gump.
That's pretty weak sauce, do you have anything from the REAL WORLD to back up your claim? The definition of "average"?
Even though he's only being sarcastic, LazarX pretty much nails this one small point.
When was the last time you (or anyone you know) saw a medical doctor who's IQ was below 125?
Odds are on, if the Dr was educated anywhere that grants accredited MDs, the answer to that is and always will be a resounding "Never!"
Most college degrees, that will actually contribute measurably to a person's earning potential, de facto require at least an IQ of 115 - roughly 1/3rd of the population... most of whom already do have a college degree or will be getting one under the current regime. Half of all Americans have an IQ below average (not even as smart as George W. Bush, aka Bush 43). Sending the 2/3rds to college will have no net result other than to keep them out of the full-time work force for another 4 years.
We saw what a big help an Ivy League degree was for 43.
About 1/3rd of the American population would benefit much more by trade or other focused-skill education starting in high school and maybe continuing for another two years. Plus, later, OTJ training for a job they already like and/or are doing (let's face it, for some people a job is a job).
The remaining 1/3rd... a good (i.e. better than is typical at present) 8th grade education will suffice. And then OTJ "continuing education".
thejeff wrote: ...union stuff...
None of these problems are new.
Poor people in 1955 sometimes went hungry off and on for years, wore shoes with holes in the bottoms, etc. I'm sure that does happen today, in places, but now those are also going to be people who are seriously mentally ill and not merely "born on the wrong side of the tracks".
To avoid LazarX's attempt at an Godwin-like Ayn Rand derail... What's different now, compared to the heyday of Unions, is that we no longer have half the country moving from the farm to the city/suburbs.
My point about modern factory efficiency is that we already, per capita (and excluding the 1%!), have more goods and services than we need to live comfortably. Joe 6-pack lives better than any Roman Emperor (except for, maybe, access to sexual partners) and Americans, even poor ones, all have TVs and other demonstrably non-essential goods.
Educating half the citizens won't make yet more goods and services suddenly necessary. Even if we could bring those family wage blue collar jobs back, a college degree won't make Mike the Teamster more employable than he already is - on average.
The burden is on you to show that a college degree makes the economic pie bigger, not merely reapportions an existing pie. To be effective the program will have to use means testing.
If you're going to give people a free education, and you leave out means testing, you're going to waste time and money. An earned degree will be devalued into an entitlement.
If you use means testing you're going to have a political fight on your hands that you cannot win. Just like "everyone" believes that the American Congress in inept [~85% disapproval], yet their own Rep/Senator is worth voting for [~85% approval] <eye-roll>, so too do they believe that most kids are about average in their teachability, but their kid is above average [~85%] <eye-roll out the back of your head>.
The Fox wrote: ...car stuff... And in 1955 your dodge sedan could be expected to last 10 years, having been in the shop 3 or 4 times, aside from routine maintenance.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Quark Blast wrote: Irontruth wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Exactly my point. Average kids, if they were to learn core stuff at the rate that is reasonable to expect, would be done with education by the close of 8th grade.
Throwing money-as-education at them, and eventually an "earned" diploma, won't really help society any.
So far, the best evidence you have presented is Forest Gump.
That's pretty weak sauce, do you have anything from the REAL WORLD to back up your claim? The definition of "average"?
Even though he's only being sarcastic, LazarX pretty much nails this one small point.
When was the last time you (or anyone you know) saw a medical doctor who's IQ was below 125?
Odds are on, if the Dr was educated anywhere that grants accredited MDs, the answer to that is and always will be a resounding "Never!"
Most college degrees, that will actually contribute measurably to a person's earning potential, de facto require at least an IQ of 115 - roughly 1/3rd of the population... most of whom already do have a college degree or will be getting one under the current regime. Half of all Americans have an IQ below average (not even as smart as George W. Bush, aka Bush 43). Sending the 2/3rds to college will have no net result other than to keep them out of the full-time work force for another 4 years.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. I have repeatedly pointed out that the proposal includes ALL FORMS OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION.
You only talk about how college isn't for everyone. I agree. I think colleges should only admit people who qualify for their programs.
So, please tell me why ALL FORMS OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION are a waste. You don't get to single out college. You must tell me why ALL FORMS OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION are a waste, because the proposal is for improving access to ALL FORMS OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION. So if you only talk about college, your response is worthless, because you didn't talk about ALL FORMS OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION.
Once more to help it get through
ALL FORMS OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Irontruth wrote: ....shouted lots of stuff repeatedly about reading comprehension.... Speaking of reading comprehension:
How do you justify all your shouting in the face of these crystal clear statements of mine? Quark Blast wrote: About 1/3rd of the American population would benefit much more by trade or other focused-skill education starting in high school and maybe continuing for another two years. Plus, later, OTJ training for a job they already like and/or are doing (let's face it, for some people a job is a job).
The remaining 1/3rd... a good (i.e. better than is typical at present) 8th grade education will suffice. And then OTJ "continuing education".
These are but two, among several other posts up-thread, by moi. I suggest you follow your own emphatic advice...
but no shouting please! :)
thejeff wrote: Those very factories and mass production you speak of replaced many times the number of workers and craftsmen that used to be needed. Not so much the auto-plants since those were fairly new, but think of the textile industry. Or of agriculture for that matter.
Sounds like a good place for another plug for The Other America (1962)
Quark Blast wrote: Mike the Teamster Hey!
[Gets pushy]
Who told you my name, huh?
[Gets on cellphone]
Hey, Sal, yeah we got a rat in the Free College thread. Send Juice and the Sullivan Twins!
Quark Blast wrote: When was the last time you (or anyone you know) saw a medical doctor who's IQ was below 125? How exactly do you determine this? Did you subject your doctors to the pretty much meaningless IQ test? How exactly are you making your determination? on what frame of reference? Are are you just spouting hyperbole?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Lack of productivity (wealth) isn't the problem. Distribution is the problem. The more educated the populace, the more people will figure this out.
And we can't have that, can we? :P
"This latest corporate reform plan, the Common Core State (sic) Standards (CCSS), eliminates community-based planning, destroys personal response to literature, and, instead of fostering education for individual need and the common good, puts children on a treadmill to becoming scared, obedient workers for the global economy. The constant exhortation to teachers and students is: 'You're not good enough for the market economy!'
"When the ruling class screams about people not measuring up, over time, the besieged are trained to blame themselves for the lack of jobs, lack of benefits, lack of a safety net. Blame themselves and not the politicos, hedge-funders, bankers and cronies whose own greed has put our entire system in peril."
School sucks!
Vive le Galt!!!
Americorps is a lot of on the job training for the person doing it, and you re still complaining about that because right wing grarg told you it was bad.
Quark Blast wrote: Irontruth wrote: ....shouted lots of stuff repeatedly about reading comprehension.... Speaking of reading comprehension:
How do you justify all your shouting in the face of these crystal clear statements of mine? Quark Blast wrote: About 1/3rd of the American population would benefit much more by trade or other focused-skill education starting in high school and maybe continuing for another two years. Plus, later, OTJ training for a job they already like and/or are doing (let's face it, for some people a job is a job).
The remaining 1/3rd... a good (i.e. better than is typical at present) 8th grade education will suffice. And then OTJ "continuing education".
These are but two, among several other posts up-thread, by moi. I suggest you follow your own emphatic advice...
but no shouting please! :) I have to, because all you do is go on and on about how college isn't for everyone.
The proposal is to improve access to ALL FORMS OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION. But you focus on how college isn't for everyone because "Forest Gump".
Quark Blast wrote: ]Poor people in 1955 sometimes went hungry off and on for years, wore shoes with holes in the bottoms, etc. I'm sure that does happen today, in places, but now those are also going to be people who are seriously mentally ill and not merely "born on the wrong side of the tracks".
My point about modern factory efficiency is that we already, per capita (and excluding the 1%!), have more goods and services than we need to live comfortably. Joe 6-pack lives better than any Roman Emperor (except for, maybe, access to sexual partners) and Americans, even poor ones, all have TVs and other demonstrably non-essential goods.
Ah yes, the old "Nobody's really poor in the US because they've got TVs and other non-essentials" line.
Yes, even poor people in modern American often have things that weren't invented in Nero's day. They also often don't have thing Nero had plenty of, like places to live and plenty of food. The fact that some non-essentials are cheap and common doesn't mean everyone has the essentials covered. And no, it often isn't worth trying to sell your 10 year old TV because it won't actually help you cover the rent.
Nor is everyone who's lost their job or who can't find one in the first place "seriously mentally ill". Many of the long term homeless are, yes, but there are also plenty of others who don't know where the next meal is coming from. The main reason we don't is because there are more government programs helping them, but we're trying to shred those.
[QUOTE="Quark Blast"
To avoid LazarX's attempt at an Godwin-like Ayn Rand derail... What's different now, compared to the heyday of Unions, is that we no longer have half the country moving from the farm to the city/suburbs.
Educating half the citizens won't make yet more goods and services suddenly necessary. Even if we could bring those family wage blue collar jobs back, a college degree won't make Mike the Teamster more employable than he already is - on average. No, we don't have half the country moving from farms to the city looking for work, we've got half the country moving from those good factory jobs to ????
The details are different, but the outline is the same. The argument back in the day would be that we're able to grow enough food with far less people, so what are all those people going to do? The answer to that is now obvious, but it wasn't then.
I agree that simply giving everyone college degrees won't fix the problem, but I'm more disturbed that you seem to think the problem is fundamentally unfixable. That the mass of people are going to live in poverty, even if they have cheap consumer goods.
And you're still assuming that those average or below kids, are concentrated among the poor and that our current education system does a good job of allotting higher ed to the smart, rather than by wealth and social class.
As for means testing - you mean like the 529 college savings plan? Help the kids whose parents have the cash to put aside and does nothing for those who can't afford it?
My own perspective on Obama's education proposal, by no means indicative of anyone else, just another perspective.
I love the idea of subsidized 2 year college degree. Yes, it will cost 34 Billion in a country that is already so strapped we can't even fund infrastructure maintenance and repair. However, not everyone wants or NEEDS a Bachelor's Degree to get started. As Mike Rowe pointed out, their are plenty of jobs out their for people who want to learn a trade and work, get their foot in the door for $20 grand a year and then within 5 make $45 to $50 grand a year doing a trade, like Machine Operator (operate cranes and backhoes and such). Hell, all I have is an A.A.S. in Nanomanufacturing working for a company that makes Indium Phosphide lasers and Silicon Planar Lightwave Circuits...I learned a trade.
On the other hand, I VEHEMENTLY HATE the idea that a college education, even a 2-year degree becomes just one more ENTITLEMENT program for a country that has WAY TOO MANY ENTITLEMENT programs already. I was raised on the foundation that nothing in life is free, nor is anyone (excluding anyone under the age of 18), anywhere, entitled to anything. I worked to put myself through school, held down two jobs while I did. So my perspective is skewed.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Gendo wrote: I love the idea of subsidized 2 year college degree. Yes, it will cost 34 Billion in a country that is already so strapped we can't even fund infrastructure maintenance and repair. However, not everyone wants or NEEDS a Bachelor's Degree to get started. As Mike Rowe pointed out, their are plenty of jobs out their for people who want to learn a trade and work, get their foot in the door for $20 grand a year and then within 5 make $45 to $50 grand a year doing a trade, like Machine Operator (operate cranes and backhoes and such). Hell, all I have is an A.A.S. in Nanomanufacturing working for a company that makes Indium Phosphide lasers and Silicon Planar Lightwave Circuits...I learned a trade.
The country isn't "strapped". it's just has bongo priorities on spending it's money, and redistributing it's wealth to the uppermost classes, maintaining the largest war machine on the planet. while letting it's infrastructure go to pot. We could fund the program and more by taking ourselves out of a perpetual war state and downsizing a battleship or two.
We could stop subsidizing the rich in their efforts to move their corporations overseas or moves such as Walmart moving it's tax liabilities to Canada.
Gendo wrote:
On the other hand, I VEHEMENTLY HATE the idea that a college education, even a 2-year degree becomes just one more ENTITLEMENT program for a country that has WAY TOO MANY ENTITLEMENT programs already. I was raised on the foundation that nothing in life is free, nor is anyone (excluding anyone under the age of 18), anywhere, entitled to anything. I worked to put myself through school, held down two jobs while I did. So my perspective is skewed.
BTW, I don't know when you did this, but the world has changed. Costs for college are much higher, especially relative to low end wages. It's much harder than it used to be to work your way through school.
thejeff wrote: Gendo wrote:
On the other hand, I VEHEMENTLY HATE the idea that a college education, even a 2-year degree becomes just one more ENTITLEMENT program for a country that has WAY TOO MANY ENTITLEMENT programs already. I was raised on the foundation that nothing in life is free, nor is anyone (excluding anyone under the age of 18), anywhere, entitled to anything. I worked to put myself through school, held down two jobs while I did. So my perspective is skewed.
BTW, I don't know when you did this, but the world has changed. Costs for college are much higher, especially relative to low end wages. It's much harder than it used to be to work your way through school.
Yeah. I would love to see the job you could work while in school that gives you 10-20K surplus to spend on the degree. Even after graduating, you wont find that in most fields.
Caineach wrote: thejeff wrote: Gendo wrote:
On the other hand, I VEHEMENTLY HATE the idea that a college education, even a 2-year degree becomes just one more ENTITLEMENT program for a country that has WAY TOO MANY ENTITLEMENT programs already. I was raised on the foundation that nothing in life is free, nor is anyone (excluding anyone under the age of 18), anywhere, entitled to anything. I worked to put myself through school, held down two jobs while I did. So my perspective is skewed.
BTW, I don't know when you did this, but the world has changed. Costs for college are much higher, especially relative to low end wages. It's much harder than it used to be to work your way through school.
Yeah. I would love to see the job you could work while in school that gives you 10-20K surplus to spend on the degree. Even after graduating, you wont find that in most fields. 10-20k? That won't even cover a year at Rutgers, these days. You can't found college on a paper route any more.
LazarX wrote: Caineach wrote: thejeff wrote: Gendo wrote:
On the other hand, I VEHEMENTLY HATE the idea that a college education, even a 2-year degree becomes just one more ENTITLEMENT program for a country that has WAY TOO MANY ENTITLEMENT programs already. I was raised on the foundation that nothing in life is free, nor is anyone (excluding anyone under the age of 18), anywhere, entitled to anything. I worked to put myself through school, held down two jobs while I did. So my perspective is skewed.
BTW, I don't know when you did this, but the world has changed. Costs for college are much higher, especially relative to low end wages. It's much harder than it used to be to work your way through school.
Yeah. I would love to see the job you could work while in school that gives you 10-20K surplus to spend on the degree. Even after graduating, you wont find that in most fields. 10-20k? That won't even cover a year at Rutgers, these days. You can't found college on a paper route any more. Well, I was thinking about state schools like SUNY, and you can get federal loans for some of that.
That being said, a year at my alma mater, WPI, is now over 60K.
Caineach wrote: LazarX wrote: Caineach wrote: thejeff wrote: Gendo wrote:
On the other hand, I VEHEMENTLY HATE the idea that a college education, even a 2-year degree becomes just one more ENTITLEMENT program for a country that has WAY TOO MANY ENTITLEMENT programs already. I was raised on the foundation that nothing in life is free, nor is anyone (excluding anyone under the age of 18), anywhere, entitled to anything. I worked to put myself through school, held down two jobs while I did. So my perspective is skewed.
BTW, I don't know when you did this, but the world has changed. Costs for college are much higher, especially relative to low end wages. It's much harder than it used to be to work your way through school.
Yeah. I would love to see the job you could work while in school that gives you 10-20K surplus to spend on the degree. Even after graduating, you wont find that in most fields. 10-20k? That won't even cover a year at Rutgers, these days. You can't found college on a paper route any more. Well, I was thinking about state schools like SUNY, and you can get federal loans for some of that.
That being said, a year at my alma mater, WPI, is now over 60K. Rutgers is a State School. It's full name is Rutgers SUNJ. The problem with states cutting so much funding to state colleges and universities, they've been making up the shortfalls in tuition hikes. Rutgers for example hikes it's tuition on an average 20 percent per year.
Rutgers is New Jersey's state school.
LazarX wrote:
Rutgers is a State School. It's full name is Rutgers SUNJ. The problem with states cutting so much funding to state colleges and universities, they've been making up the shortfalls in tuition hikes. Rutgers for example hikes it's tuition on an average 20 percent per year.
That's what I hinted at above. All the people boasting about how they paid their way through college back in the day and didn't rely on free government money like kids these days don't realize that they were being subsidized since the subsidies went directly to the school, keeping tuition down, rather than to the students to pay the much higher tuitions.
Krensky wrote: Rutgers is New Jersey's state school. State University. New Jersey has eliminated all but one (two, if you count the weird creature known as Thomas Edison State College. I don't for various reasons) of it's state colleges by making then Universities, along with hefty tuition hikes to boot.
LazarX wrote: Caineach wrote: LazarX wrote: Caineach wrote: thejeff wrote: Gendo wrote:
On the other hand, I VEHEMENTLY HATE the idea that a college education, even a 2-year degree becomes just one more ENTITLEMENT program for a country that has WAY TOO MANY ENTITLEMENT programs already. I was raised on the foundation that nothing in life is free, nor is anyone (excluding anyone under the age of 18), anywhere, entitled to anything. I worked to put myself through school, held down two jobs while I did. So my perspective is skewed.
BTW, I don't know when you did this, but the world has changed. Costs for college are much higher, especially relative to low end wages. It's much harder than it used to be to work your way through school.
Yeah. I would love to see the job you could work while in school that gives you 10-20K surplus to spend on the degree. Even after graduating, you wont find that in most fields. 10-20k? That won't even cover a year at Rutgers, these days. You can't found college on a paper route any more. Well, I was thinking about state schools like SUNY, and you can get federal loans for some of that.
That being said, a year at my alma mater, WPI, is now over 60K. Rutgers is a State School. It's full name is Rutgers SUNJ. The problem with states cutting so much funding to state colleges and universities, they've been making up the shortfalls in tuition hikes. Rutgers for example hikes it's tuition on an average 20 percent per year. Rutgersis still only 25K for on campus tuition. While 5-6K more than NY, after federal loans, it will still be in my estimate.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Caineach wrote: LazarX wrote: Caineach wrote: LazarX wrote: Caineach wrote: thejeff wrote: Gendo wrote:
On the other hand, I VEHEMENTLY HATE the idea that a college education, even a 2-year degree becomes just one more ENTITLEMENT program for a country that has WAY TOO MANY ENTITLEMENT programs already. I was raised on the foundation that nothing in life is free, nor is anyone (excluding anyone under the age of 18), anywhere, entitled to anything. I worked to put myself through school, held down two jobs while I did. So my perspective is skewed.
BTW, I don't know when you did this, but the world has changed. Costs for college are much higher, especially relative to low end wages. It's much harder than it used to be to work your way through school.
Yeah. I would love to see the job you could work while in school that gives you 10-20K surplus to spend on the degree. Even after graduating, you wont find that in most fields. 10-20k? That won't even cover a year at Rutgers, these days. You can't found college on a paper route any more. Well, I was thinking about state schools like SUNY, and you can get federal loans for some of that.
That being said, a year at my alma mater, WPI, is now over 60K. Rutgers is a State School. It's full name is Rutgers SUNJ. The problem with states cutting so much funding to state colleges and universities, they've been making up the shortfalls in tuition hikes. Rutgers for example hikes it's tuition on an average 20 percent per year. Rutgersis still only 25K for on campus tuition. While 5-6K more than NY, after federal loans, it will still be in my estimate. That's 100-240k for a four year program not even counting other expenses, such as books, food, housing. A much greater proportion of that financial aid will be in the forms of loans, not grants. I don't know about you, but saddling a graduating student with up to a quarter million of debt (this assumes of course no advanced graduate degrees) is not exactly what I'd call promoting a functional middle class.
In the classic period, a college graduate wasn't dealing with that kind of debt right off the bat.
Lazarx, pot is deeply offended at being compared to our infrastructure
LazarX wrote: Krensky wrote: Rutgers is New Jersey's state school. State University. New Jersey has eliminated all but one (two, if you count the weird creature known as Thomas Edison State College. I don't for various reasons) of it's state colleges by making then Universities, along with hefty tuition hikes to boot. Wow.
Congratulations on winning the semantic silliness championship.
Rutgers, Temple, Lincoln, Penn State, Pitt, SUNY, Delaware... All Universities. All state schools.
Ruttger's is roughly $25k a year for a residential student. That includes most fees, room, and board. It not include books and lab fees, but those are not doubling that.
For four years thats $100k. Call it $104k with a grand a year for books and labs. Way more than it should be, but WAY less than the quarter million you're coming up with out of nowhere.
|
